- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45982 CRL.RP No. 568 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 568 OF 2023 BETWEEN: NIKHIL ZAHID INFANT AGED 36 YEARS, S/O A.R. INFANT R/A NO.59, 5TH 'A' CROSS, 21ST MAIN, MCHS COLONY, B T M SECOND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 076. …PETITIONER [BY SRI VENKATRAMANA M K., ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: SRI GURUKUMAR G. CHOUKIMATH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O GURULINGAIAH, NAVAMI SHANKAR, 5TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, OPP. BSNL GRIHALAXMI LAYOUT, KAMALA NAGAR, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI AKRAM PASHA K., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 READ WITH 401 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO 1. MODIFY THE JUDGMENT/ CONVICTION ORDER DATED 28.05.2020 PASSED IN C.C. NO.6130/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 13TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE, BY ENHANCING THE FINE AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF DOUBLE THE CHEQUE AMOUNT BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION.2. TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.03.2023 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL. NO. 890/2021 BY THE FILE OF THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-61). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45982 CRL.RP No. 568 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 14.03.2023 passed by LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-61), in Crl.A.no.890/2021 confirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.05.2020 passed by XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.no.6130/2017, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Venkatramana M.K., learned counsel petitioner submitted that revision petition was by complainant being aggrieved against order passed by Trial Court insofar as sentence. It was submitted, while convicting respondent - accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('NI Act', for short) and directing him to pay fine amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, Trial Court failed to take note of fact that cheque in question was for Rs.15,00,000/- issued on 31.08.2016 and order of convicting was passed in year 2020 i.e. four years thereafter. 3. It was submitted, instead of exercising jurisdiction to fine amount more than cheque amount, Trial Court without - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45982 CRL.RP No. 568 of 2023 proper reasons imposed fine amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and out of said amount Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be adjusted to State. In effect, ordering accused to pay less than cheque amount to complainant. It was submitted when said order was appealed, Appellate Court dismissed appeal as not maintainable, leading to this petition. 4. To a Court query, whether accused had also filed appeal against order of conviction, learned counsel submits that appeal was filed, order of Trial Court was confirmed and said order was also confirmed by this Court in Crl.R.P.no.501/2022 disposed of on 17.02.2025. 5. Heard learned counsel and perused Order dated 17.02.2025 passed in Crl.R.P.no.501/2022 along with impugned judgment. 6. Insofar as order passed by Appellate Court dismissing appeal is not maintainable, learned counsel for petitioner aggrieved that appeal by complainant for enhancement of fine would not be maintainable. Thus, there can be no exception to reasons stated. However, attention of this Court was drawn to order dated 22.10.2021 passed in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45982 CRL.RP No. 568 of 2023 Crl.R.P.no.574/2020, whereunder petitioner was directed to approach Sessions Court. 7. Perusal of said order reveals that, this Court had observed for enhancement of fine, complainant would require to file revision before District Court. Instead of filing revision before District Court, petitioner has filed appeal which has been rightly dismissed as not maintainable. Therefore no error as would warrant interference is made out. 8. Hence, revision petition is dismissed, reserving liberty to avail revision remedy, in accordance with law. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24